(

WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
FILE TlTLE OFFICER CASE NO.
Seattle PolieelDOJ Referral Detective Russell Haake WSP 12-005188
SUSPECT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CODE OTHER CASENO.
Investigation Summary
CASE SUMMARY
On April 10, 2012 Sergeant Anderson received an email from Lieutenant LeBlanc
detailing allegations against a Seattle Police Department command officer. With
the email was an attached memorandum generated from the United States
Attorney's Office. Included inthe memorandumwere three allegations ofpotential
misconduct by Assistant ChiefMike Sanford. The memorandumwas dated April
10,2012 and was addressed to Assistant ChiefGregMiller ofthe Washington State
Patrol and King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg. The purpose of the
memorandum was to refer the incidents to the listed agencies for follow up.
On the same day Lieutenant LeBlanc, Washington State Patrol Criminal
Investigation Division, authored an email to Sergeant Anderson, Washington State
Patrol Criminal Investigation Division King County, indicating the investigation
would be forthcoming. The memorandum was included with the email.
On Aplil 11,2012 Anderson called Lt. Leblanc and discussed the allegations and
overall development ofthe investigation plan. The formal request fi'om the King
County Prosecutor had arrived and Anderson was assigned as lead investigator.
Anderson contacted Detective Haake, who was assigned to assist with the
investigation, and provided him a copy ofthe memorandum.
OnApril 12, 2012 Anderson and Haake spoke onconference call with cmCaptain
Cabezuela and Lt. LeBlanc and further details of the investigation plan were
discussed.
On Aplil 13, 2012 Sergeant Anderson emailed a copy ofthe investigationplan to
Lt. LeBlanc for review and approval.
OFFICER'S SIGNATURE
~ r
DATE
5'./12.,
SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE DATE
WSP-lSB-268 8/85 -428-
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral 12-005188 April 11, 2012
(
On April 16,2012 Anderson spoke on the phone with King County Senior DeputyProsecutor Mark
Larson. Larson indicated the most applicable RCW for the allegations was 9A.80.0lO, Official
Misconduct.
The allegations are:
1. Attempt by Assistant Chief Sanford to obtain the sergeant's promotional test and
bibliography for the test.
2. Assistant Chief Sanford's daughter was the at-fault driver in a traffic collision with another .
car. Seattle police responded to the scene. Assistant Chief Sanford arrived at the scene in
plain clothes and spoke to the victim driver before the patrol officer had an opportunity to
speak withhim. Assistant Chief Sanford told the patrol officer "It's okay, it's all taken care
of' and did not give the officer the opportunity to get informationfrom the other driver. No
report of the collision was taken. The incident was reported by the patrol officer to his
sergeant.
3. Assistant Chief Sanford directed subordinates to contribute to his charities of choice,
including Special Olympics and the Polar Bear Plunge. He told the sergeants theyhadto buy
T-shirts for Special Olympics and that he did not want to hear they could not afford it, and
that he would make sure to give them enough overtime to afford it.
On April I?, 2012 Anderson and Haake met with Seattle Police Department Officer at
the Tully's coffee shop lobby of Hotel Deca on the corner ofNE 45
th
and Brooklyn Avenue NE.
With was Seattle Police Officer Mike LeBlanc. was the officer who contacted the
collision Assistant Chief Sanford's daughter was in. was provided a copy of the
memorandum with the specific allegations.
told Anderson and Haake the incident happened on March 1, 2011 at 6:28 p.m.
further indicated the collision occurred at the intersection of 25
th
Avenue NE and NE 68
th
Street.
The Seattle Police Incident number is 2011-69720.
repOlied he was en route the nOlih precinct, where he is assigned, when he drove upon the
collision scene. The collision had been reported to Seattle Police but had not yet been broadcast or
assigned. indicated one car, later determined to have been driven by Sanford, had
more extensive damage from under ridding the bumper of the vehicle in front. further
repOlied the damage to the car that had beenrear-ended was minimal. According to
Sanford was standing on the sidewalk while her car was still in the roadway. The other car was
patked curbside.
first contacted a witness, Evan who provided a verbal statement and his contact
infOlmation. then asked if she was okay and was able to determine there were no
injuries to her or the other driver. directed to pull her vehicle to the curbside and
returned to his patrol car. made a U-turn and pulled in behind an unmarked government
vehicle with exempt plates that had just arrived.
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral 12-005188 April 11, 2012
(
(
It was at that point recognized Assistant ChiefSanford and realized he must have arrived in
the unmarked vehicle. indicated Assistant Chief Sanford was in plain clothes and did not
display a badge or other identification that would identify him as a police officer. greeted
Assistant Chief Sanford and approached the involvedparties withhis notebook and the intention of
gathering identification andpapetwotkfor a collision report. At that time and in the presence ofthe
involved drivers Assistant Chief Sanford asked ifa collision report was necessary. said he
pausedfor amoment and looked at the other driver who indicated that he was okay with no collision
report being filed. was also under the impression both drivers were inthe process ofor had
already exchanged information. added the other driver was never identified.
Anderson asked about the latitude he has regarding collision investigations and citations.
replied that ifa collisionreport is taken the causing driver would receive a citation.
also reported it is not uncommon for an officer to facilitate a collision exchange without taking a
report. fmiher added in this instance the fault for the collision was with Sanford.
Anderson asked ifAssistant ChiefSanfordlived in the area, and replied that at some
point during the contact he became aware that was on her way to meet her father when the
collision occurred. also reported it was a bit unusual for the Chiefto showup butfelt hewas
doing what any father would do for his kid and did not feel uncomfortable withhis presence.
called his sergeant and reported the events.
On April 25,2012, Haake spoke with repotied he was biking in Seattle and was
walking his bike in the crosswalk when the collision occurred. was in a designated cross
walk and observed Sanford's vehicle collide with the victim vehicle, which was stopped at the
crosswalk. observed was somewhat hysterical after the collision occurred and
that she expressed concern and distraught over insurance. thought there were two people
in the victim vehicle. observed a man (he estimated was father) showup but
did not speak with him or anyone else involved in the collision. was unsure if
father showed up before or after arrived. spoke with officer and
provided a verbal description ofthe incident and his contact information. The only unusual thing
thought about the collision was howmuch damage there was to car compared
to how little damage there was on the victimvehicle.
On April 18, 2012, Anderson and Haake contacted Seattle Police Sergeant
regarding the phone call he received from about the collision Sanford's daughter had
been in. received a phone call from immediately after the incident and spoke with
him in person at the Seattle Police North Precinct. said it was his impression that
Assistant Chief Sanford was already at the scene when arrived. According to his
recollection ofthe question posed to from Assistant Chief Sanford was 'There's not
going to be a report on this, is there? impression was that this would be an intimidating
statement/question posed to a subordinate in the position was in. said he got the
sense that may have been intimidated despite statement to the contrary.
added that was of course aware of Assistant Chief Sanford's rank.
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral 12-005188 April 11, 2012
( -
indicated about three days after the incident he received a phone call from Assistant Chief
Sanford. According to Assistant Chief Sanford was calling out of concern over the way
he (Sanford) handled the contact at the collision scene. said he told Assistant Chief
Sanford that his conduct at the scene may have influenced Officer decisions, and that
his rank and position was bound to have some influence. added that may have
handled the collision investigation in the same manner without the influence of the Assistant
Chief Sanford, but we would never know. indicated Assistant Chief Sanford told himhe
was at the scene merely to support his daughter. Additionally, indicated he was under the
impression that Assistant Chief Sanford had spoken with the other individual involved in the
collision, but that there was nothing to suggest he had identified himself as a Seattle Police
Officer. Haake asked what type of vehicle Assistant Chief Sanford drives and said
a Chevrolet Malibu with "D" plates.
Anderson then asked if he had any information about issues arising from Assistant Chief
Sanford and his preference of charities. reported a couple of times a year Assistant Chief
Sanford calls a meeting with patrol sergeants and discuss his goals and vision for the upcoming
year. indicated the meetings generally go all day and that at the end Assistant Chief
Sanford passes around a hat for donations to Special Olympics. According to Assistant
Chief Sanford tells the sergeants in a joking manner to put your donations in the hat if you wish
to go home early. added that some sergeants in attendance are on overtime, and that
Assistant Chief Sanford would joke that if the Sergeants did not put money in the hat, he would
not sign their overtime authorization. explained this statement was pointless because
overtime is approved through the sergeant's immediate command. indicated about half of
the sergeants in attendance were younger and many felt compelled to donate money but that the
older sergeants would often refrain from making a donation. It was 's opinion that such
behavior by a command officer, regardless ofthe fact that Assistant Chief Sanford was kidding
around, was inappropriate.
On April 20, 2012, at 0600, Sergeant John Anderson and Detective Russ Haake met with City of
Seattle The purpose of the contact was to take a
statement from regarding an allegation that Assistant Chief Mike Sanford attempted to
obtain a copy ofthe bibliography and promotional exam for sergeants.
Haake began the interview by providing a copy of the typed allegations to and
Haake had spoken on the phone regarding the incident prior to the contact and repOlied
she was familial' with the events.
indicated that she had been called for a meeting with Assistant Chief Sanford and
Sergeant Pete Verhaar regal'ding procedural recommendations for the sergeant's exam. That
meeting occurred in May 2011. During that meeting was presented with a document on
Seattle Police letterhead that had recommendations for procedures to be included in future
sergeant's exams. It was during this meeting learned that Assistant Chief Sanford had
organized a committee for the purposes ofpreparing the recommendation she had received.
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral 12-005188
April 11, 2012
had not been included in the committee discussions previously.
A person who was originally on that committee had spoken with sometime after the
meeting. That person indicated he/she was no longer invited to the meetings because he/she
expressed to the committee that should be involved with the process.
follows specific guidelines for administering the sergeant's exam and felt at least one of
the recommendations compromised exam security. That recommendation was to have the exam
downloaded onto Microsoft computers at Microsoft the day before the exam, and have the
applicants test there. felt ifthis were to occur she could no longer validate the security
of the test and referred to a cheating incident that had occurred in 2002. She also expressed
concern about unforeseen technological issues that could occur during the process.
continued preparing the sergeant's exam and bibliography as she had in the past and on
the week it was due spoke on the phone with Sergeant Verhaar. During that conversation
Verhaar expressed his displeasure at not being included in the development of the sergeant's
exam and bibliography. was confused and upset by his comments because she had
followed all her outlined procedures.
On the same day received a phone call fi'om Assistant Chief Sanford who asked ifthe
bibliography for the sergeant's exam was coming out and she confirmed that it was. Assistant
Chief Sanford sounded upset and expressed to that ChiefDiaz was very unhappy because
she had not followed up with any ofthe committee's recommendations. said she had
followed all protocols for preparing the bibliography and test. was upset after the phone
conversation with Assistant Chief Sanford and was confused because she was not aware of any
changes in the protocol for preparing the exam and bibliography.
On the morning of September 1, 2011, was in her office and observed a phone call
coming in from the office building lobby. did not answer, saying she suspected that the
call was coming fi'Om Assistant Chief Sanford. said she called her assistant and asked
her assistant to go and speak with him. She asked her assistant to tell Assistant Chief Sanford
that she was not available. assistant went to the lobby and contacted Assistant Chief
Sanford. Assistant Chief Sanford had with him a glass vase with flowers. Assistant Chief
Sanford was not allowed in but assistant did take the flowers and brought them to
Later that day received an email from Assistant Chief Sanford indicating how
lucky the City of Seattle was to have her as an employee.
said she wanted to speak with Chief Diaz himselfregarding the confusion surrounding
the protocol and testing for the sergeant's exam and requested a meeting with him. At
approximately 4:15 p.m. received a phone call from Chief Diaz's assistant indicating,he
was back at his office. said she left and was on her way to the Chiefs office and while
still on the first floor, received another phone call from ChiefDiaz assistant and was asked not to
come up to the Chiefs office. ChiefDiaz's assistant met on the first floor and told her
that she was to speak with Assistant Chief Sanford regarding the sergeant's exam and
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral
bibliography.
12-005188 April 11, 2012
left the office building and approximately five minutes later received a phone call on her
cell phone fi'om Assistant Chief Sanford. During that conversation Assistant Chief Sanford told
"I'myour friend" and "We appreciate you". Assistant Chief Sanford explained that
Chief (Diaz) felt as though he did not have input in the bibliography. Assistant Chief Sanford
referred again to the book, "Community, by Peter Block," that was not included in the
bibliography despite Chief's Diaz request.
said that she purchased and read the book, and while she indicated it was a good read, it
was a difficult book to draw questions from for asergeant's exam and so was not included in the
bibliography. gave a copy ofthe book to her supervisor who also read the book and
concluded it was not going to be included in the bibliography. After the bibliography came out
received a phone call from Chief Diaz in which he expressed his unhappiness about the
book being left out.
and her boss attended a meeting with ChiefDiaz in which she hoped to discuss the whole
incident. Also in attendance at the time was Assistant Chief Dick Reed. was expecting a
meeting with Chief Diaz only, and as a result felt ifwould be inappropriate and uncomfortable
discussing the incident in front ofAssistant Chief Reed.
Detective Haake asked ifAssistant Chief Sanford was able to get a copy of the sergeant
test and she indicated "no". explained that Assistant Chief Sanford has a reputation for
surrounding himself with officers who he wishes to promote, who share his philosophy and who
he can manipulate, in a manner of speaking, to do his bidding.
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
· "'"try Date Time Entered By
( ;10/2012 14:10 Anderson, John
04/11/2012 12:00 Anderson, John
04/11/2012 15:00 Anderson, John
04/12/2012 15:00 Anderson, John
,11312012 11:56 Anderson, John
04/16/2012 9:49 Anderson, John
04/16/2012 12:47 Haake, Russell
04/16/2012 13:02 Anderson, John
04/16/2012 13:17 Anderson, John
Investigation Log Report
Case #: 02-12-005188
Log Entry
Early warning.
Anderson received an email from Lt. LeBlanc with CID Command in Olympia, to
give Anderson advance notice of a case that could be coming his way, involving
allegations against a high ranking Seattle Police Department command officer
(letter attachment).
Call to Olympia.
Called and spoke with Lt. LeBlanc about the case. The formal request from the
King County Prosecutor's Office arrived and the case has been assigned to
Anderson. LeBlanc asked for an investigative plan regarding the case, and
asked that Anderson be the primary on the case. LeBlanc also talked about
formulating a media statement in the event the agency gets inquiries into the
investigation.
Brief for Det. Haake.
Anderson briefed Detective Haake and provided him a hard copy of the
allegations. Anderson directed Haake to keep copies of any correspondence
between himself and Anderson connected with this case and that copies were to
include sent mail as well.
Conference call.
Anderson, Haake, LeBlanc and Captain Cabezuela did a conference call
regarding the investigation and assets that will be needed or used. For now,
Anderson and Haake will work this case, with Anderson having authority to pull
assets as needed without advance approval by Olympia
Investigative Plan
Shipped the investigative plan to LeBlanc for review.
Call to Mark Larson
Called and spoke with Mark Larson, Senior Deputy Prosecutor with the King
County Prosecutor's Office. Larson talked about RCW 9A.80.01 0 being the
most applicable law to any potentiai violations in this investigation. Larson was
provided my name and Det. Russ Haake's name and Anderson told him we
would be in regular contact.
Phone call to
Detective Haake called office number and left a message requesting
a phone call.
Message left for
Called the north precinct and left a message for to call Anderson on
his cell phone.
Phone call from
Officer returned my call. I explained who I was, what I was
investigating and how IIWSP became involved. I provided a
synopsis of the allegation involving the collision and he without hesitation stated,
that wasn't actually what happened. He added, "... he wasn't that intrusive."
added that he has the incident number and will get that before calling
me back tomorrow so we can sit down and talk about the allegation. I then
asked him if the spelling I had for his iast name was correct and he said that
was a new misspelling he had never heard. He gave me the correct spelling of
his last name as
appears unconcerned about the nature of the allegation leveled at
4/271201 Investigation Log Report 02-12-005188 Page 1 of 4
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Investigation Log Report
Case #: 02-12-005188
04/18/2012 12:30 Anderson, John
04/17/2012 11:00 Anderson, John
04/17/2012 10:55 Haake, Russell
04/19/2012 10:00 Haake, Russell
Log Entry
Sanford as it appiies to him ( and whoever provided this information to
DOJ butchered last name.
and I spoke on the phone this morning. After introductions I asked if
she is the person who administers the Sergeants exam for Seattle PO and she
indicated she is. I told her WSP is following up with an investigation and that
because of her position she may be a witness. She explained that she is
preparing for an exam and has been working and is working long hours. She
asked for some details regarding the investigation and I explained we are
looking into someone in Seattle's command trying to get a copy of the
Sergeants exam. new exactly what I was talking about and stressed
several times throughout our conversation the exam was not compromised.
described to me that Assistant Chief Sanford had put together a
,committee (regarding the Sergeants exam) and had suggested implementing
additional parameters for the test including the use of Microsoft Computers
instead of paper and pencil. is the person responsible for the
promotional exam and did not make the recommended changes. She was
informed that Chief (Diaz) was upset with her regarding this and made an
appointment to meet with him. That meeting did not occur. Evidently someone
ran interference and she was not allowed to meet with the Chief.
indicated she has copies of all the documents associated with this event and will
provide them when we meet. I told her I would call her later this morning and
set up a time for a meeting.
I called and left her a message requesting a call back.
called back and agreed to meet with Sergeant Anderson and me at the
Starbucks at the U Village on Friday the 20th at 6 a.m.
Statement from
Anderson and Haake met with Officer at the Tully's in the Hotel Deca,
NE 45th and Brooklyn. Also present was SPO Officer Mike LeBlanc.
Statement review
Met with in Seattle and gave him his statement to review. He did so and
signed two copies, one of which was provided to him. Anderson also got the
photo copy of notebook notes that had with him during the interview.
Fax to SPO
Faxed a request to SPO for their incident report connected to the collision
Sanford's daughter was involved in.
Statement from Sgt.
Anderson and Haake met with Sergeant at his residence in Bothell.
Statement review
Haake met with in Bothell and gave him his statement to review.
made one change on the second page last paragraph where it read about half
the sergeants were younger officers... to younger sergeants. and Haake
both signed the statement and one copy Was left with
Interview
Haake and Anderson met with in Seattle. provided an
8:37 Haake, Russell
9:41 Anderson, John
6:00 Anderson, John
04/17/2012
04/17/2012 15:26 Anderson, John
04/18/2012
04/20/2012
""try Date Time Entered By
(
04/17/2012 9:37 Haake, Russell
(
4/271201 Investigation Log Report 02-12-005188 Page 2 of 4
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
F.,try Date Time Entered By
(
Investigation Log Report
Case #: 02-12-005188
Log Entry
interview concerning the allegation about Sanford getting a copy of the
sergeant's exam.
04/25/2012
04/25/2012
9:32 Haake, Russell
9:52 Haake, Russell
also provided information in connection with the allegation surrounding
Sanford and charities. said that Sanford had had a relationship with
who at the time was the SPD Records Manager. Sanford and
worked together, in some manner, on the Speciai Oiympics charity. During one
particular charity drive, was in the presence of a large sum of money that
was the proceeds of shirt sales, when some of the money turned up missing.
According to there is a criminal investigation surrounding that incident,
and has since resigned in lieu of termination.
Possible Witness to collision
I called Evan ). Evan is a possible witness to the collision
Sanford was in. Evan was contacted by Officer and his contact
information was recorded in note book which he provided to Sergeant
Anderson. I left a message requesting a phone call on my office or cell phone.
Adam
Adam's name appears in the Seattle incident log for the collision that
Sanford was involved in. I called the phone number I found for Adam but no
one answered and the phone rang more than ten times before I hung up.
I called an additional number and left a message: (Good number
for Adam)
Adam called back and left a message indicating he would be available later on
in the afternoon.
04/25/2012 10:00 Haake, Russell
04/25/2012 14:08 Haake, Russell
'25/2012 16:52 Haake, Russell
I called and spoke with this morning. She is very busy preparing for the
Seattle Police Sergeants exam but agreed to call me when she has a chance to
meet and go over the statement.
Phone Interview of Evan
was walking his bike across the street at 25th Ave NE and NE 68th
Street when the collision involving Sanford occurred. Evan was in a
designated cross walk and observed Sanford's vehicle collide with the victim
vehicle. The victim vehicle was stopped at the crosswalk. was told by
someone he shouid stay because he witnessed the collision, so he did.
observed (the college student) ( was somewhat hysterical after the
collision occurred and that she expressed concern about being in trouble and
was distraught over insurance. thought there were two people (a
couple) in the victim vehicle. observed a man (he estimated was
father) showed up but did not speak with him or anyone eise invoived
in the collision. was unsure if father showed up before or
after the office arrived. spoke with the officer and provided a verbal
description of the incident and his contact information. The only unusual thing
thought about the collision was how much damage there was to
car compared to how little damage there was on the victim vehicle.
Phone interview of Adam
was a police dispatcher up until approximately three months ago when he
accepted a positionwith Seattle City Light. estimated he showed up on
the incident log because he was dispatching but had no recollection of the
incident.
4/27/201 Investigation Log Report 02-12-005188 P a ~ e 30f4
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Investigation Log Report
Case #: 02·12·005188
""try Date
( v4127/2012
Time Entered By
8:00 Haake, Russell
Log Entry
Statement review
Detective Haake met with in Seattle and provided her the statement for
review. made two corrections on both copies. The first correction was
on the second page first paragraph. The number 3 in the 2003 was line out and
the number 2 was written in its place. In the second paragraph on the same
page indicated the book that was mentioned was not part of that
conversation but came up later in another conversation with Assistant Chief
Sanford. (That was covered later in the statement.)
04/27/2012 10:35 Haake, Russell
signed both copies and kept one for her records.
King County Prosecutor Mark Larson
Anderson and Haake spoke with Larson regarding the investigation. Larson
requested the documents be faxed to him for review.
4/27/201 Investigation Log Report 02-12-005188 Page 4 of 4
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
IVSP ISB 268 8/85 428
FILE TITLE OFFICER CASE NO.
Seattle Police/DOJ Referral Detective Sgt. Jolin Anderson 12-005188
SUBJECT
CRlMINAL ACTIVITY CODE OTHER CASE NO.
Interview- Officer
CASE SUMMARY
On April I?, 2012, Sergeant John Anderson and Detective Russ Haake met witli Seattle Police
Department Officer The purpose of the contact was to take a statement from
concerning his contact with Deputy Chief Mike Sanford at the scene of a motor vehicle
collision that involved Sanford's daughter.
met Anderson and Haake at the Tully's coffee shop in the lobby ofHotel Deca on the
comer ofNE 45
th
and Brooklyn Avenue NE. With at the time was Officer Mike
LeBlanc.
Anderson began the interview by providing a copy of the specific infonnation related to this
allegation only to Anderson also asked for specific infonnation related to the incident as
the only information available to this point was very broad in nature, suggesting the incident took
place sometime in 2010 or 2011. told Anderson and Haake the incident happened on
March 1, 2011, at 1828. fmiher added the incident happened at 25
th
NE and NE 68
t
h, and
that the SPD incident number is 2011-69720.
According to he was en route the north precinct where he is assigned, when he drove
upon the collision scene. explained that the collision had been repOlied to his
communications center but had not been broadcast and/or assigned yet. stated that one
car, later identified as having been driven by Sanford, had heavy damage to the front
end where it rode under the bumper ofthe other involved vehicle. added that damage to
the vehicle that had been rear-ended was minimal. According to Sanford was
standing on the sidewalk, the car that had been rear-endedwas parked curbside, but
vehicle was still sitting in the roadway. said he first contacted a witness to the collision,
and identified that witness as Evan at 16
th
Avenue NE in Seattle, with a cell phone
o . said he then asked if she was okay and was able to determine
there were no injuries to either Sanford or the other driver.

DATE
Page 10f2
L//7./Z

DATE
k?-I?
. -.. V"
. .
-
r
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
(
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral 12-005188 April1?,2012
directed to pull her vehicle to the curbside where it would be out of the lane,
then returned to his patrol car, made a U-turn and pulled in behind an unmarked government
vehicle with exempt plates that had just anived.
It was at this point that said he recognized Assistant Chief Sanford and it appeared to
that he must have arrived in the unmarked vehicle. According to Chief Sanford
was in plain clothes and displayed no badge or other item of clothing that would identifY him as a
police officer. said he almost didn't recognize Chief Sanford as it appeared he had lost a
lot ofweight. added he greeted the Chief, and approached Sanford and the
other ddver with his notebook in hand with the intention of getting driver's licenses and other
paperwork to begin the collision report. It was at this point that in the presence ofthe two
drivers, Chief Sanford asked if a collision report was necessary. said he paused for a
moment, and looked to the other ddver. According the the other ddver sort of sluugged
and indicated that he was okay with no collision rep01l being filed. further explained that
he had the impression that both and the other driver were or had already exchanged
infonnation. added that the other involved ddver was never identified, either by name or
by the license plate on his vehicle.
Anderson asked about what latitude SPD gave their officers with regards to citing
ddvers. replied that the agency policy is that if a collision report is taken, the causing
driver would get a citation. further stated that in this case, the fault for the collision was
with Sanford. said that at the scene of the collision there was a crosswalk, and
thought the witness he first spoke with may have been in the crosswalk with traffic
stopped for him and Sanford ran into the back ofthe car in front ofher.
Anderson asked if Sanford lived in the area, and replied that at some point in the
contact, became aware that Sanford was on her way to meet her dad when the
collision happened. Anderson asked if it appeared that Sanford was insinuating himself
into the collision investigation by arriving on scene. replied that it was his impression
that Sanford was acting as any concerned father would, coming to the scene and checking on
both his daughter and the other driver, and trying to handle his responsibility in as low key a
manner as possible. said he was never directed by the Chief to not investigate the
collision, nor did the Chief interfere with his actions.
When asked about the pall ofthe allegation provided to the WSP that spoke rep01ling
the Chiefs actions to Sergeant , said he felt it was a bit unusual ofthe Chief
to show up, but that he ( didn't feel uncomfortable with his presence.
9PJlelllcRe:tl at about 1240. Anderson told they would write up the
he interview and sign it.
Date '-{. (',- "ZO/2-
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION
( INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
428 IVSP ISB 268 8/85
FILE TITLE OFFICER CASENO.
Seattle PoIicelDOJ Referral Detective Sgt. John Anderson 12-005188
SUBJECT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CODE OTHER CASE NO.
Interview- Sergeant
CASE SUMMARY
On April 18,2012, at 1230, Sergeant John Anderson and Detective Russ Haake met with Seattle
Police Department Sergeant The purpose of the contact was to take a statement
from concerning contact one of the officers under his command had with Deputy Chief
Mike Sanford at the scene of a motor vehicle collision that involved Sanford's daughter.
Anderson and Haake contacted at his residence where he is recuperating following foot
surgelY. The interview was recorded in notes only by both Haake and Anderson.
Anderson began the interview by providing a copy ofthe specific information related to this
allegation only to . said his first knowledge of this incident came in a phone call
fi'om immediately after he left the scene. According to , he then spoke in person
with at the SPD North Precinct. said it was his impression that Deputy Chief
Sanford was already on scene when drove upon the collision. According to his
recollection of the information posed to him from was the Chief asked "There's
not going to be a repOlt on this, is there?" impression was that this would be an
intimidating statement/question posed to a subordinate in the position was in.
said that he got the sense that may have been intimidated, despite saying he
wasn't. added that told him he was of course aware of Chief Sanford's rank.
told Anderson and Haake that is a phenomenal officer, relating how had
been shot during a bank robbety, and had almost immediately returned to work. At the time of
the incident, had worked for for about three or four months.
said that about three days after the incident, Chief Sanford called him. added that
the phone call came to him through his Captain's office. According to Chief Sanford
was calling out of concern over the way he (Sanford) halldled the whole contact at the collision
scene. stated that he told the Chiefthat his conduct at the scene may have influenced
OFFICER'SSlGNA
n
~
DATE
Page 1 of2
tj 1'112
Sd..d;IGNATURW
v
DATE
1 ~ / 9 ~ . I 7
(-';i,. .......A , ...
- -
,
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
(
Seattle Police - DOJ Refenal 12-005188 April 18, 2012
Officer actions. said he told Chief Sanford that his rank and position was bound
to have some influence. told Anderson and Haake that may well have handled the
incident in the same manner he did, without the influence of Chief Sanford, but that we would
never know. According to it was his impression from Chief Sanford that the Chief was
at the scene merely to suppOli his daughter. also added that he was under the impression
that the Chief had spoken with the other involved driver at the scene, but that there was nothing
to suggest the Chief had "badged" the other party, Haake asked what kind of car Chief
Sanford drove, and he replied that he thought it was a Chevy Malibu with "D" plates on it.
reported the contact with the Chief back through his chain, including his Lieutenant and
Captain,
was asked if he had heard anything in the SPD grapevine about the incident. According
to Assistant Chief Metz was offended that one of his peers acted in the manner in which
Chief Sanford did, showing up at the scene of a collision and making his own arrangements to
handle the incident outside official channels. explained that Metz' daughter had been
involved in a similar incident in which Metz, knowing about the incident, directed the SPD
officer who handled the incident to handle the investigation "officially" and take whatever action
they deemed necessmy,
said that aside from Metz taking issue with Deputy Chief Sanford's actions, has
heard nothing more about the incident.
Anderson then asked ifhe might have any infonnation about issues arising from Deputy
Chief Sanford and his preference of chm'ities. chuckled and said that he thought that issue
(Sanford and charity donations) might arise. According to , a couple of times eachyear,
Chief Sanford calls a day-long meeting with all the patrol sergeants. The meetings are held at
what is referred to Park 90/5, which is the Airpoli Way facility where SPD Special Operations
offices are at. The purpose of the meetings is to set forth Chief Sanford's vision and projects for
the patrol function over the near future. said the meetings generally go all day, and that
near the end ofthe day, Chief Sanford "passes the hat" for donations to Special Olympics.
According to Chief Sanford will tell the offices in a somewhat joking manner to put your
donations in the hat ifyou wish to go home early, added that some of the sergeants in
attendance are there on overtime, and that Chief Sanford would joke that if the officers didn't put
money in the hat, he wouldn't sign there OT slips. explained that it was a pointless
statement, since the OT slips are signed by the officer's c o ~ a n r l , not Chief Sanford.
SWJ' .".,.r
stated that about half the sergeants were younger officers, an .many felt compelled to donate
money. added that the older sergeants would often refrain from making donations in such
a manner. It was 's opinion and feeling that such behavior by a command officer,
regardless of the fact most officers knew Chief Sanford was kidding around, was inappropriate.
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ Referral 12-005188 April 18,2012
Date
The intelview was concluded at about 1320. Anderson told they would write up the
interview and re-co tact him the next day to have him review the interview and sign it.
Signature
--
Code 2
Code 2
(
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
FILE TITLE OFFICER CASE NO.
Seattle PoIicefDOJ Referral Detective Russell Haake 12-005188
SUSPECT
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CODE OTHER CASE NO.
Interview-
CASE SUMMARY
On April 20, 2012, at 0600, Sergeant John Anderson and Detective Russ Haake met with
City of Seattle Police Exams Analyst The purpose ofthe contact was to
take a statement fi'om regarding an allegation that Assistant Chief Mike Sanford
attempted to obtain a copy ofthe bibliography and promotional exam for sergeants.
Anderson and Haake met at the Starbucks at the University otWashington U
Village.
Haake began the interview by providing a copy of the typed allegations to
and Haake had spoken on the phone regarding the incident prior to the contact
and reported she was familiar with the events.
indicated that she had been called for a meeting with Assistant Chief Sanford and
Sergeant Pete Verhaar regarding procedural recommendations for the sergeant's exam.
That meeting occurred in May 20II. During that meeting was presented with a
document on Seattle Police letterhead that had recommendations for procedures to be
included in future sergeant's exams. It was during this meeting learned that
Assistant Chief Sanford had organized a committee for the purposes of preparing the
recommendation she had received. had not been included in the committee
discussions previously.
A person who was originally on that committee had spoken with sometime after
the meeting. That person indicated he/she was no longer invited to the meetings because
he/she expressed to the committee that should be involved with the process.

DATE
Page 1 of3
Y':2S/Z

DATE
T7
f.' 2.5·/ E--
WSP-ISB-268 8/85 ·428·
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ Refenal 12-005188 April 20, 2012
follows specific guidelines for administering the sergeant's exam and felt at least one of
the recommendations compromised exam security. That recommendation was to have the exam
downloaded onto Microsoft computers at Microsoft the day before the exam, and have the
applicants test there. felt if this were to occur she could no longer validate the security
ofthe test and referred to a cheating incident that had OCCUlTed in 2093' JShe also expressed
concern about unforeseen technological issues that could occur during the process.
continued preparing the sergeant's exam and bibliography as she had in the past a n ~
the week it was due spoke on the phone with Sergeant Verhaar. That phone conversation CDrvvet:5. .f.
concerned in patt, the inclusion of a book Chief Diaz purportedly wanted used in the Vv«.s 6.-h I>" ~
bibliography, and occuned on August 31, 2011. Sergeant Verhaar sounded upset when I t_
OVL1
told him the book was not included, and asked why he had not been notified. was No' - ~ ~ fl/C\
confused and upset by his comments because she had followed all her outlined procedures. i N c{ lA.ded /
IN f-esr
On the same day received a phone call from Assistant Chief Sanford who asked if the d.eve( f
bibliography for the sergeant's exam was coming out and she confirmed that it was. Assistant _ b°f'rt<A
Chief Sanford sounded upset and expressed to that Chief Diaz was velY unhappy because 0 () {t:...
she had not followed up with any of the committee's recommendations. said she had NO+
followed all protocols for preparing the bibliography and test. was upset after the phone ¥e/oJ'/-io Ed
conversation with Assistant Chief Sanford and was confused because she was not aware of any N
changes in the protocol for preparing the sergeants exam and bibliography.
On the morning of September 1,2012, was in her office and observed a phone call
coming in from the office building lobby. did not answer, saying she suspected that the
call was coming fi'om Assistant Chief Sanford. said she called her assistant and asked
her assistant to go and speak with him. She asked her assistant to tell Assistant Chief Sanford
that she was not available. assistant went to the lobby and contacted Assistant Chief
Sanford. Assistant Chief Sanford had with him a glass vase with flowers. Assistant Chief
Sanford was not allowed in but assistant did take the flowers and brought them to
Later that day received an email fi'om Assistant Chief Sanford indicating how
lucky the City of Seattle was to have her as an employee.
said she wanted to speak with Chief Diaz himself regarding the confusion surrounding
the protocol and testing for the sergeant's exam and requested a meeting with him. At
approximately 4:15 p.m. received a phone call fi'om ChiefDiaz's assistant indicating he
was back at his office. said she left and was on her way to the Chiefs office and while
still on the first floor, received another phone call fi'om Chief Diaz assistant and was asked not to
come up to the Chiefs office. ChiefDiaz's assistant met on the first floor and told her
that she was to speak with Assistant Chief Sanford regarding the sergeant's exam and
bibliography.
left the office building and approximately five minutes later received a phone call on her
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2 Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Seattle Police - DOJ RefetTal 12-005188 Apri120, 2012
cell phone fi'om Assistant Chief Sanford. During that conversation Assistant Chief Sanford told
"I'm your friend" and "We appreciate you". Assistant Chief Sanford explained that
Chief (Diaz) felt as though he did not have input in the bibliography. Assistant Chief Sanford
refetTed again to the book, "Community, by Peter Block," that was not included in the
bibliography despite Chiefs Diaz request.
said that she purchased and read the book, and while she indicated it was a good read, it
was a difficult book to draw questions from for a sergeants exam and so was not included in the
bibliography. gave a copy of the book to her supervisor who also read the book and
concluded it was not going to be included in the bibliography. After the bibliography came out
received a phone call fi'om ChiefDiaz in which he expressed his unhappiness about the
book being left out.
and her boss attended a meeting with ChiefDiaz in which she hoped to discuss the whole
incident. Also in attendance at the time was Assistant Chief Dick Reed. was expecting a
. .
meeting with Chief Diaz only, and as a result felt it would be inappropriate and uncomfortable
discussing the incident in front of Assistant Chief Reed.
Detective Haake asked if Assistant Chief Sanford did get a copy of the sergeant's test and
she indicated "no". explained that Assistant Chief Sanford has a reputation for
surrounding himself with officers who he wishes to promote, who share his philosophy and who
he can manipulate, in a manner of speaking, to do his bidding.
The interview ended at about 0700 and was advised detectives would put her statement in
written notes form and get to her for her review. She was told there would be two copies for her
to sign, one for her records and one for our file.
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2
Code 2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful